Skip to main content

Full text of "Interview With Professor Robert Faurisson: No documents, no history"

See other formats

"No documents, no history". 

"The National Socialist Regime did not pursue, with regard 
to the Jews, any criminal policy" 

Iran. Faurisson. Interview (Tehran, December 13, 2006) 
Interview with Professor Robert Faurisson at the Guest House of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the 

Islamic Republic of Iran 

Hello Professor Faurisson, and thank you for granting me this interview. 

Hello. It's I who thank you for your willingness to put questions. 

Professor, may I ask what your reasons were for deciding to take part in this conference in Tehran on 
the Holocaust on December 1 1th and 12th, 2006? 

It's because I know of no other 

country, no place where a 

conference on this subject could 

welcome me. Even in the United 

States the holding of such a 

conference would be risky; to begin 

with, upon arrival on American 

territory any foreign revisionist could 

well find himself being sent straight 

back to where he'd come from. In 

France, any similar gathering would | 

be out of the question. I don't see a 

single European country that would 

tolerate a public conference or 

debate on the "Holocaust". In 

Germany, your country, the 

prohibition of any form of revisionism 

is draconian. Canada, Australia and 

New Zealand are merciless. 

Furthermore it may be that in other Professor Dr. Robert Faurisson, speaking at the first free, state 

parts of the world some countries are organised, holoaust conference in the world. 

indifferent to the matter. Thus it was Teheran, Dec. 12., 2006 

an altogether unexpected bit of luck that Iran should offer to host an international seminar on the 

"Holocaust" that, for once, would be open to all comers. It was not actually a revisionist conference 

but, as indicated by the title ("Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision"), a new look at the "Holocaust" 

from a comprehensive viewpoint and not a biased or fragmentary one. I didn't think this could come 

about in my lifetime. 

What goal have you been looking to achieve in coming here? 

I want to make public what the mainstream media of the Western world stubbornly conceal. When 
those media speak of revisionists, it's to insult us or ascribe to us ideas that we've never expressed. 
For example, they readily assert that the revisionists are people who claim the German concentration 
camps never existed. That's putting sheer nonsense in our mouths. Unhappily the nonsensical 
assertion, amongst the French in any case, is widespread. On this score, the French in general have 
the idea that the revisionists are lunatics who go so far as to deny the obvious and this is why, coining 
a barbarism, they call us "negationnistes" ("denialists"). 

Have you the impression, at the end of this gathering, that you've achieved your goal? 

In part. The world has been able to note that we exist and that we can conduct ourselves peaceably 
and courteously with people who don't share our convictions. Time was wanting for any real debate. 
And then I suppose the media will relate virtually nothing of the content of our papers. They'll keep 
silent about our arguments and discoveries. To obtain a real debate we'll need a new conference, on 
condition that our opponents don't shy away from taking part. I must say that, for an instant, I was able 
to have the beginnings of a public confrontation with a professor who was hostile to revisionism, and 
that this confrontation turned dramatically to our advantage. I'll tell you about it a bit later on, if you 

Most gladly. 

There've been, above all, the echoes made by this conference throughout the world. It has provoked 
vehement protests, starting yesterday in Washington with a statement by White House spokesman 
Sean McCormack denouncing an Iranian regime that "perversely seeks to call the historical fact of 
those [Nazi] atrocities into question and provide a platform for hatred". Then it was in Brasilia that a 
government had its say in the matter with an official protest. Then in England. Then, at the UN, Kofi 
Annan gave tongue. The Vatican as well. According to all these authorities, there are no grounds for 
asking oneself questions about the "Holocaust" of the Jews. The "Holocaust" took place and that's 

But I've promised you that example of the beginnings of a public confrontation. Here it is. That match 
of yesterday pitted me against an Iranian professor from Shiraz University, who also teaches at the 
University of the State of Washington (USA); his name is Gholam Vatandoust. At one point in his 
presentation he dared to say that the "Holocaust" was "fully documented", that is, wholly confirmed by 
valid documentation. Then, after his talk, when the audience was able to put questions, I asked this 
professor to name me a document, and I insisted on the fact that I didn't care to hear about a set of 
documents; I wanted just one. He started answering by saying how Churchill, in his memoirs, had 
denounced the Nazi atrocities. I pointed out that never had Churchill mentioned the "gas chambers" 
and that such was the case as well with Eisenhower, de Gaulle and others of their stature. I reminded 
him that what I was waiting for was the designation of a document. I had him note that Winston 
Churchill, in the remarks alluded to, was a politician expressing his sentiments. However, I was not 
looking to know anyone's sentiments, be they even those of a personality like Churchill. At that point, 
the Iranian professor believed he'd come up with another argument. He told me it would be enough to 
accompany him to the American National Archives, where I should find documents. This wasn't an 
answer since, again, I was demanding to hear of but one document. Just then the situation reminded 
me of the story of the angler and the big fish. An angler boasts of recently making an extraordinary 
haul, a truly miraculous catch, and, when I ask to see the fish, retorts: "How's that? Are you calling my 
word into doubt? If you're a doubting Thomas and won't grant me your trust, I can show you the place 
where I caught that fish." Obviously my reply will be that the place doesn't interest me: the fish does. 
Let him show me it! Thus, "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!" That's what I've been asking 
for ages. 

I told this professor that I was familiar with those National Archives. I'd even consulted them at three 
different places: in Washington proper, then, not far from there, in Suitland and at the opulent 
installation of College Park. In short, I was getting no answer to my request. The man made three 
more vague attempts, all equally futile, and part of the audience, noticing how decidedly unable he 
was to respond, interrupted the verbal jousting with laughter and applause. This morning I had the 
occasion to meet him. I found much humbler than yesterday and he exhibited a lively curiosity about 
an argument that he seemed to be just discovering. We exchanged addresses and perhaps our 
discussion will continue. I also had two brief talks in private with one of the six anti-Zionist rabbis who'd 
come to take part in the proceedings: he was from Britain and appeared surprised but not shocked by 
the findings of revisionist research. Finally, I had a short and cordial exchange with an Austrian chief 

It seems that another participant, Viktor Nadein-Rayevsky of the Russian Academy of Sciences' 
Institute of World Economy and International Relations, said at some point: "Faurisson demands 
documents, but some very important events have occurred which haven't left any documents. In these 

cases, no document can be produced." I'd like to know what these "very important events" can be to 
which no document attests! 

/ think he was talking about the Khmer Rouge. 

Perhaps. But then, I'm very sorry! We possess a large number of documents or alleged documents on 
the subject. I'll recall here the meaning of the term "document". In general, a document is something 
written, but it may also be a material object. "Document" comes from a Latin verb signifying "that which 
tells, which teaches you something". A knife on a table, a chair, a room, a building can all have the 
value of a document. It is altogether normal that, for example, a great mind such as Fustel de 
Coulanges (1830-1889), who, for us French, is the founder of scientific history, should have adopted a 
motto like "No documents, no history". 

I've just given you the example of two speakers who disputed what the revisionists have concluded 
after completing their research work. I insist on this. People are quick to call us "negateurs" (at least 
the word is French) or "negationnistes" (a lapse into barbarism). These two words mean that 
revisionists are persons who deny obvious facts. They would seem, in a way, to be inspired by the 
Devil. As in Goethe's phrase, we revisionists would be partisans of "the spirit that ever denies", 
wouldn't we? In reality, we deny nothing at all; simply, after completing our research work, we 
challenge certain affirmations and come forth with our own findings. Galileo "denied" nothing but, at 
the end of his labours, he stated that a certain idea, generally admitted, was wrong and that another 
idea was right. 

Can you sum up the substance of your own contribution to the conference? 

My talk was on "the victories of revisionism", in other words the concessions that the antirevisionists 
have over the years been forced to make to us. I recommend that people consult the text itself, which I 
entitled simply "The Victories of Revisionism" and in which I provide a selection of twenty instances of 
such victories. They run from 1950 to 2004, and some of them are quite dramatic. Unfortunately the 
general public know nothing of it all because we have no access to the media. 

An example, if you please, of these victories? 

I could cite the case of Jean-Claude Pressac. For years, that protege of the Klarsfeld couple had 
presumed to state he'd discovered proof of the "Nazi gas chambers'" existence. A book of his, in 
1993-1994, was laden with praise throughout the big media. In 1994 I replied with a booklet that 
earned me new criminal proceedings. Happily I got Pressac subpoenaed to appear at the trial. This 
was in May 1995, in Paris. His collapse under examination was spectacular. He never got back up 
again. To her credit, Valerie Igounet, a French historian hostile to revisionism, reproduced in her 2000 
book Histoire du negationnisme en France a sort of act of surrender signed by Pressac. The latter, in 
effect, had ended up admitting that the dossier on the German concentration camps was "rotten" — 
his word, that — with too many lies. He even added that a definitively "rotten" dossier had been got up 
around wartime suffering that was all too real and — in his own phrase — that dossier was "bound for 
the rubbish bins of history". 

Surprising! What became of Pressac? 

His Jewish friends, of course, disowned him. He died in 2003, aged 59. The media's silence was total. 
Pressac is one of the host of people who have proved unable to take up the challenge I launched back 
in the 1970s. At that time I'd demonstrated how the case for the existence of the alleged Nazi gas 
chambers ran into some radical impossibilities. The Leuchter Report and the Rudolf Report, not to 
mention a few other reports or views expressed by men of science, subsequently confirmed my 

Here, in Tehran, you began your talk with a word of warning about the photographs said to be of Nazi 
atrocities. Why? 

Because people's minds are steeped in them. In the business of lying propaganda nothing's more 
simple and effective than the use of photographs. You don't even need any complicated montages. It's 


enough to show images of the sick, the dying or the dead and, in relation to these, speak of the killed, 
the murdered or the slaughtered. Ordinary decent folk will be taken in. They'll feel revulsion, 
indignation, anger. They'll no longer see what's in front of them (the dead) but only what's been put 
into their minds (the killed). They'll become fixated on it. They won't take time to think things over. In 
the area of false massacres the procedure stays unchanged. The alleged massacres at Auschwitz 
are, from this point of view, comparable, relatively speaking, to all the alleged massacres that may be 
conveniently blamed on the defeated side of any conflict, be it at Andersonville (alleged extermination 
camp of the American Civil War), Timosoara (Romania) or Kuwait City. Corpses of women and 
children will do the trick especially well. 

It's the procedure that, in 1945, was resorted to by the Americans and the British, on the one hand, 
and by the Soviets on the other hand. Teams of photographers or cameramen enter such or such 
German camp at the moment of its liberation. The first step is to have everything photographed or 
filmed. The second is to set aside for later use, after selection, only the most pitiful or revolting images, 
notably from the hospital barracks or their vicinity; pains will particularly have been taken to get images 
of the typhus-sufferers, veritable walking skeletons. The third step is to prepare commentary that will 
lead the public to believe the German commandants and guards had purposely reduced those poor 
wretches to such a state, as they were quite simply carrying out a policy of physical extermination of 
the detainees. Exceptions aside, the photographs of some very large groups of healthy-looking 
inmates, jubilant at being freed, will be hidden away. It will not be revealed that, in these camps, there 
could well exist for the benefit or use of the inmates, as was the case at Auschwitz, vast kitchens and 
all sorts of sanitary, medical, dental or surgical facilities, bakeries, post offices, workshops, places for 
artistic or musical recreation whose mere presence renders implausible, at the least, the existence of 
any intent whatsoever on the part of the Germans to exterminate those inmates. On the contrary, with 
the propagandists, a scalpel will fraudulently be shown as proof that people were killed or tortured; a 
disinfection gas chamber will become proof that people, and not vermin, were gassed; a can of 
Zyklon-B, a disinfection or anti-infestation substance (Entseuchung, Entwesung) that was, accordingly, 
used to preserve lives against certain deadly diseases or epidemics, will become proof that the 
Germans employed it to suppress human life. The real horrors of all those camps were the 
overcrowding, the close quarters and the violence incidental to detention in such circumstances ("men 
are like apples: the more they're heaped on top of each other, the more they rot"), the prison violence, 
the hunger, the harsh weather, the diseases, the epidemics. Revisionist author and activist Paul 
Rassinier told of all this very well indeed. Thus, at times, many inmates were going through hell. 

You brought up, in particular, the British propaganda about Bergen-Belsen.. . 

Yes. Winston Churchill's compatriots achieved quite some feat there. It's what I call the "Bergen- 
Belsen bulldozer job". In April 1945, that camp, overcrowded, ravaged by epidemics coming from the 
East, famished, deprived of water in recent days due to the Anglo-American bombing raids, had 
become a veritable den of infection. For this reason the Germans sent out a delegation to 
Montgomery's approaching troops to warn them of the state of things there (and probably of the risks 
for everyone, including the civilian population, should the internees all be immediately released without 
any screening). The British agreed to cooperate with the Wehrmacht, but not with the SS, in order to 
attempt to remedy the situation. Then they saw fit to open the numerous common graves, count the 
bodies and finally, pile those bodies into great, deep ditches. To push all the corpses towards the 
ditches they used a bulldozer. In a film shot on site we are shown the bulldozer in action. A selection 
of these images has been passed on to posterity, notably thanks to the documentary 
(documendaciary?) Night and Fog (1955). Millions of viewers have believed that here they've seen 
proof of the Germans' killing their captives, day after day, on an industrial scale. Very rare indeed must 
be those who've been able to make out that the bulldozer driver is a British soldier and not a German 
soldier. In 1978 a book published in South Africa with the aim of thwarting any revision of the 
"Holocaust" presented a still photo of the bulldozer and the bodies but not without "cutting off' the 
driver's head: the obvious intent was to have us believe the driver was German. 

Moreover, with time, in the minds of some, amongst whom Maurice Druon of the Academie francaise, 
"that" bulldozer, in the singular, has, of course, become "those" bulldozers. One could go on and on 
listing the very crudest procedures of this propaganda rooted in atrocity stories. Thus it is that we're 
cunningly shown piles of shoes and eyeglasses or heaps of hair as if they were evidence that the 
people they came from were gassed; here the propagandists are sure to avoid reminding us that, in a 
Europe subjected to blockade and reduced to general penury, nothing was thrown away: everything 


was recovered and recycled, including hair, which served a particular purpose in the textile industry. 
There were countless workshops recycling leather, glass, metal or wood, both in the camps and in the 
towns and villages. The "suitcase job" is also worth noting. A very well-known photograph shows us, at 
Auschwitz, suitcases carefully stacked and presented as the pieces of luggage on which each doomed 
owner had taken the trouble to write his or her name and address before being sent to the gas 
chamber. However, a close look shows that the names and addresses are all written in the same hand 
and with the same white substance. Consequently, here it is a question, in reality, of a task performed 
at the entrance of every detention centre: new prisoners' belongings are tagged and registered by the 
prison clerks. Thus had Marcel Bloch-Dassault, long after the war, been able to receive from Germany 
the wallet confiscated from him upon entry at Buchenwald. One evening he could be seen, on French 
television, exhibiting that wallet, opening it and taking out the four-leaf clover that was in it at his arrival 
in the camp. That said, there's no doubt the German authorities must have drawn from the vast stores 
and confiscated effects to distribute some of them to the civilian population ravaged by the bombings 
and deprived of everything. 

Wasn 't it at Bergen-Belsen that Anne Frank and her sister Margot died? 

Yes, in late February or early March of 1 945. They died of typhus. Still long after the war the official 
truth had it that that they'd been gassed at Auschwitz, a camp where they effectively spent some time 
before their transfer to Bergen-Belsen. Their fate makes them deserving of pity. But a good deal more 
pitiable still was the fate of the German civilian populations killed or burned alive by the Anglo- 
American bomber squadrons. A German man had the idea, after the war, to consult a book with the 
register of those killed in the bombing of the city of Wiirzburg in the night of March 24, 1945 alone; in 
that list of more than 5,000 he noted, I think, 128 women or girls bearing the Christian name Anne or a 
closely associated one. There's hardly much talk of those women or girls systematically killed solely 
for being German, is there? 

Do you think that the National Socialist regime committed crimes against the European Jews? 

That regime did not pursue, with regard to the Jews, any criminal policy. That said, some crimes were 
indeed committed, especially in wartime, and they were what are generally called "excesses". Crimes 
of this kind were either against Jews as individuals or against Jews taken in groups, for instance, in 
the course of a military operation or indeed during reprisals. Still, if one looks closely, nothing should 
distinguish those crimes from the odious acts that the victors perpetrated against, for example, 
Germans or Japanese. I am now going to insist on a fact that's important and that even the 
revisionists don't exploit enough. We have proof, we've had it ever since the Nuremberg trial, that 
soldiers, officers and functionaries, tried by the military tribunals or courts martial of the Third Reich, 
were, during the war, sentenced to death and executed for the murder of a single Jewish man or 
woman. One day in the Ukrainian town of Marinka, the mayor, who happened to be a 
"Volksdeutscher", an ethnic German, and who had been appointed mayor probably because he spoke 
German, killed a local Jewess. Brought before a military tribunal, he was condemned to death and 
shot. I'll come back to his case. 

We have the example of a young German lieutenant in Budapest who, upon entering a Jewish 
woman's house with his men, saw a radio set — forbidden to Jews — and wanted to take it away, 
along with some jewellery. With the woman threatening to go to the police, he ended up killing her. 
Court-martialled, he was sentenced to death and executed. As for the soldiers who'd accompanied 
him, they were given heavy prison terms. 

Were they from the Wehrmacht or the SS? 

They were from an air-defence unit. But, you know, this distinction made between the Wehrmacht and 
the SS is valid in certain cases and not at all so in others. For example, when in military action, they 
were on the same footing. But anyhow, if there had existed any order whatsoever to kill all the Jews 
simply because they were Jews, the Reich authorities wouldn't have gone and shot someone who, 
breeching discipline, had killed a Jew or a Jewess. 

According to you, are these few examples sufficient evidence for one to say that the whole Wehrmacht 
and the whole SS conducted themselves in such a manner? 

Can a German order to kill the Jews — and I am saying to kill — have existed? It's ruled out if I can, 
as I'm doing here, present you with even just a single case of a German military tribunal trying and 
condemning to death a single person, then having that person executed for the murder of a single 
Jew. I haven't been speaking of "sufficient evidence" but of evidence. A piece of evidence is an 
element that one may take into consideration in order, at the end of proceedings, to hand down a 
decision. The judge has before him a set of evidence or testimonies and he draws his conclusions 
therefrom. Let's begin at the beginning, that is with cases like those I've brought up here or with the 
one, which comes to mind just now, of a Luftwaffe man who, in southern France, was sentenced to 
death for "excesses" against a Jewish woman. 

I personally experienced the German occupation. In 1939 I was ten years old and in 1945, when the 
Germans left France, I was fifteen. 

Where did you live? 

First, up until July 1943, in Marseille, then in Paris. Never ever could someone, catching sight of a 
Jew, have picked up a weapon and killed him with impunity. The consequences for the murderer 
would have been extremely grave. 

It so happens that, since 1957, I've lived in Vichy. One night in August 1941 a little bomb went off in 
front of the gate of the synagogue, without injuring anyone. The culprits were found the next day: they 
were a certain number of young Doriotistes, French supporters of collaboration with Germany in the 
fight against "Judeo-Bolshevism". They were quickly tried and convicted. I've found the text of the 
court decision. And, thanks to someone who, during the war, was in the police, I've learnt that one of 
the young participants in the "attack", a "pupille de la nation", that is, the son of a serviceman who died 
in the First World War, was so badly beaten inside Vichy police station that he subsequently died. 
Never during the entire war could a Frenchman have allowed himself to strike a Jew in the street. A 
Jew as such was of course considered by the State as a potentially dangerous citizen. He was living 
under a sort of probation. He might have good reason to keep on his guard. His movements and rights 
were subject to severe restrictions, but there was no lack of Jews who, all during the German 
occupation, continued to go about their business in plain view of everyone, even running their shops 
or practicing their trades. Still in Vichy, Marshall and Mrs Petain's regular chemist was a Jew by the 
name of Maurice Benhamou, and the kosher butcher's in the rue Bardiaux seems to have stayed open 
throughout the Occupation. In May 1944 in Lyon an American bombing raid left a number of people 
dead. Amongst the services held for these victims was an ecumenical ceremony led by the Cardinal- 
Archbishop, with an imam and a rabbi by his side. But this does not, of course, cancel out the fact that 
in Vichy, Lyon and in all the rest of the country the Jews could experience deportation, and either 
return or not return afterwards. 

Here you're speaking of France? 

Yes, of France under the Occupation. 

And in the East, do you think things were the same? 

If you have any specific cases, do present them. You're German. I should readily invite any German to 
read an extraordinary document on the day-to-day life, during the whole war, of certain Jews in the 
very heart of the Third Reich. It's the memoirs of Victor Klemperer. I possess all three versions: 
German, French and English. I like to compare the different versions of a book. In the case at hand, 
the most interesting version is the French one; instead of stopping at June 1945, it continues on to 
December of that year and contains a letter of January 1947 in which the author, quite obviously under 
the influence of the propaganda that had been about since the war's end, piles up lies and 
exaggerations on what he'd really lived through and which he'd so accurately described, day after day, 
in his memoirs proper. 

Victor Klemperer, a Dresden Jew, is married to an Aryan woman. Very anti-Nazi, he recounts his 
torments. I'll tell you the summit of those torments: being Jewish, he had to wear the Jewish star in 
public and he did a grand total of eight days in prison, in June 1941, for having broken the Civil 
Defence rules after curfew. He spent the eight days in the cells of Dresden police headquarters, 

where, he tells us, he was treated quite correctly. In his book he constantly stresses how the Germans 
he's met on the tram, in the street, at the grocer's, far indeed from ill-treating him or coming across 
antagonistic, have by and large shown themselves to be considerate and helpful. Vogel the grocer 
keeps coffee, a precious commodity at the time, aside for him. Civil servants are agreeable and polite. 
"Passers-by sympathised with the star bearers". He has several "favourable experiences with the star 
[. . .] There is no doubt that the people feel the persecution of the Jews to be a sin". That said, he takes 
delight in Germany's military disasters and in the bombing raids and is sad to note that it seems 
impossible to shatter the civilians' morale. These memoirs (at least 5,000 typewritten pages) amount 
to a scathing refutation of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's thesis claiming that "ordinary Germans", by their 
anti-Semitism, contributed to what is called "the Holocaust". 

You talk there of France, of Germany, but if one goes further eastward, it's Poland, the 
Generalgouvernement, and then, in regard to that country and Russia, the "Einsatzgrupen" have to be 
discussed. What do you say here? 

It's above all in Russia that those police units operated. The war in the East was a savage one. The 
Soviet State had not signed on to the Geneva and Hague conventions and the Germans found 
themselves up against a partisan war. At the Soviet end there were no rights, no law. Thus could the 
Germans, when there'd been a group of partisans in a village, be led to destroy everything in it, even if 
there were women and children. German soldiers' safety was the paramount concern. With Germany 
at war, what German wife, what father or mother would have agreed that a husband or son should be 
liable to be killed by an individual in civilian dress shooting from behind, then slipping away? In such 
moments there inevitably came about instances of military savagery, acts as are displayed in similar 
circumstances by all the armies of the world. 

Coming back to my personal experience in France, I was able to see at work first the French soldier, 
then the German soldier, the Italian soldier, and, finally, the Canadian soldier, the British soldier and 
the American soldier. I, who, during the war, was so anti-German, must admit that I only ever saw 
extremely correct Germans; I can even mention some startling cases. When, afterwards, I saw the 
Americans arrive, I thought it was wonderful. Sure enough, many of them were likeable and well- 
behaved but there were also, amongst the American soldiers, NCOs and officers, some real louts. And 
then, on another score, I was especially distressed on seeing the horrors of the Big Purge. But here 
I'm getting off the subject. 

You wanted to talk about the "Kommissarbefehl", the "Einsatzgruppen" and Babi Yar. 

Yes, three parts of one same subject. We're told that there existed a "Kommissarbefehl", described as 
an order to kill systematically the Soviet political commissars who oversaw the troops, and here the 
occasion is seized to add that the "Einsatzgruppen's" task was to kill the Jews. It's false. First of all, 
there never existed any "Kommissarbefehl" as such. Some historians have acquired a habit of 
designating by this term a set of documents concerning the sorting of prisoners or of certain civilians 
just behind the front. The Einsatzgruppen, established at the time of the Anschluss in 1938, were 
assigned the job of this sorting. On the immense Russian front, they were a mere 3,000 (three 
thousand), drivers and clerks included. At the outset of the military campaign, they were given rigorous 
instructions. People should read these instructions. They amount to saying that, as the rules of war 
are unknown to the Soviets, a strict sorting of prisoners will be in order. Certain captives will have to 
be executed forthwith because they are not soldiers but fanaticised political commissars who cannot 
be left in prisoner-of-war camps; others will perhaps be useful to Germany. One document, labelled 
USSR-014 at the Nuremberg trial, spells out eight categories of suspect persons who must, after 
sorting, be separated (Aussonderung) from the military or civilian prisoners. It's interesting to note that 
the Jews are mentioned in eighth (and last) place; it's specified in this order of October 29, 1941, that 
only a category of Jews is concerned. I quote: "8) Soviet Russian and Jewish intellectuals, insofar as 
they are professional revolutionaries or political activists, authors, editors, Komintern officials etc.". 
With their customary dishonesty, the officials in charge of summarising the documents presumed to 
write that "those affected" "are above all Soviet commissars and other leading personalities, also Jews 
and members of the intelligentsia"; in their resume they go so far as to write of "directives... for the 
'purging' by special commandos of the prisoner-of-war camps", whereas, let me repeat, for this 
document, it's a matter of "sorting". When the troops advance and take a town, the Einsatzgruppen, a 
kind of military police in the field, will have to try to check the identity of prisoners and civilians. This 
doesn't mean that these people are going to be killed. Only some of them will be slated for execution. 


On the other side, with the Communists, no bones were made about executions. Therefore in first 
place came the political commissars. Neither here nor elsewhere did there exist any order to kill the 

Then, if I understand you correctly, these instructions didn't specify that all the political commissars 
were to be executed, even though the said commissars were mentioned first. 

That's right. Often, it seems, those commissars were Jews; however, even in their case, there was a 
sorting to be carried out. But you'll understand well enough that, in practice, this meant there were 
prisoners that one had the right, in effect, to execute in contravention of the laws of war. Also, as 
you're perhaps aware, the German military commanders did not want to act like the Red Army and, in 
the end, refused to follow through with the harshest provisions of the orders in question. 

As for Babi Yar, no material investigation of the type carried out at Katyn during the war has been 
made there; nothing has surfaced to support the accounts generally heard on the subject, which seem 
implausible. I'll come back to Babi Yar. 

You wanted to add something about that town in the Ukraine, Marinka. 

Yes, but first, at risk of surprising you, I give you notice that for a brief moment we're going to leave the 
realm of history for that of fiction. Here is the drama that I imagine. 

The German mayor of Marinka, recently sentenced to death for killing a Jewish woman, is going to be 
shot by firing squad. He is in a prison cell awaiting execution. It is night. He is in the throes of death. 
Just now, a man appears at the cell door and addresses him as follows: "You are a German whom 
German soldiers, in a short while, are going to shoot because you've killed a Jewess. However, be 
advised that, in a few years' time, Germany will have been flattened. Her conquerors will prove 
ruthless. They'll make a clean sweep of everything you've learnt and believed. They'll make up a lie- 
ridden history of this war. They'll impose the winners' version. This new official historical truth, forced 
upon Germany and propagated nearly everywhere else in the world as well, will be that, during this 
war, Germans had every licence to do what you've done. Yes, its promoters will go so far as to claim 
that the Germans spent the better part of their time hunting down, torturing and slaughtering the Jews. 
They'll state that Hitler had given the order to murder all the European Jews. They'll add that, in order 
to succeed in a task of such colossal proportions, he'd had weapons of mass destruction built, 
weapons so diabolical that after the war not a trace will be found of them. Television sets, still so rare 
today in 1942, will be in every home; morning, noon, afternoon, evening and night, year in year out, 
they'll be spreading this universal neo-truth that will be taught in the primary and secondary schools, 
the universities and even in the catechism, to your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. A 
bit everywhere monuments will be put up and ceremonies instituted in honour of the new religion. The 
few who dare to dispute this dogma will be taken to court, thrown into prison, outlawed from society. 
And do you know who the most fervent apostles of this new creed will be, a creed of what will be 
called 'the Holocaust of the Jews'? Don't go searching! It will be the Germans themselves. In the very 
firing squad that's going to shoot you there are perhaps some men who'll survive the war and who, 
once they've got back home, will start believing the lie of 'the Holocaust'. In any case, their children, 
their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren will believe it." The mayor of Marinka will receive this 
message as an overwhelming shock. Indeed, he'll go out of his mind as a result, and it's a madman 
that they'll be leading to the stake. 

Such is the tragedy I imagine. I see in it the story line of a stage play or film to be made. This tragedy 
is that of Germany, whose very soul has been harried to death with the "Holocaust". 

Let's leave fiction and come back to history. I'd like to dwell a little on the case of Babi Yar. Currently, 
certain Jewish organisations, sensing that the myth of the gas chambers is taking in water all around, 
are trying a diversion, asking us to turn our attention away from the alleged gas chambers and gas 
vans and towards the "Einsatzgruppen". This is, for example, what a French Jewish personality like 
Jacques Attali has recently done in writing "The vast majority of Jews slain were killed by the individual 
weapons of German soldiers and policemen, between 1940 and 1942, and not by the death-works 
that were put into place afterwards". Employing a brand new phrase, these Jews call this the "Shoah 
by bullets"! This "Shoah by bullets" is now summoned to replace the "Shoah by gas". 


But, Professor Faurisson, if, in Germany, it's said that the Holocaust is "offenkundig", and so of 
common knowledge, this is because our libraries are cram-full of books on the subject. This being the 
case, how can one not agree that it's "common knowledge"? 

Those masses of books all take up, with some variations, one and the same argument, that of 
Germany's conquerors. It's the law of the victor here that's being applied in the land of the 
vanquished. If one looks closely, one sees that this argument is not at all proved, and even that there 
exists a quantity of evidence to prove it wrong. For the historian, "common knowledge" doesn't 
constitute either argument or evidence. It used to be common knowledge that the Sun revolved 
around the Earth; it used to be common knowledge that Nero burned Rome; it used to be common 
knowledge that witches existed. In 1914 it was common knowledge for the Allies that the Huns were 
cutting off Belgian children's hands. It has, in a more recent past, — if only by virtue of a decree from 
the Nuremberg judges — been common knowledge that the Katyn massacre was carried out by the 

So then, as you see it, Raul Hilberg and his like are either lying or stupid. 

Not necessarily. It may be that they more or less believe what they relate. This is what I tried to explain 
during our conference when, at the start of my talk, I spoke of a "historical lie". This lie sets itself apart 
from the ordinary lie in that, developing over a long period of time, it becomes, historically, a sort of 
standard truth. People then sincerely believe what they call truth and which, at its origin, is but a lie. 
These people err more by way of conformism, laziness and lack of intellectual curiosity than by way of 
dishonesty. These faults are to be put down to Man's imperfect nature. We can't spend our existence 
verifying everything: that would be too burdensome. Hence we often prefer to swallow, eyes closed, a 
product advertised as wholesome and genuine whereas, in fact, it's doctored. 

Do you mean they might well be "men of good will"? 

In order to answer, I'd have to be able to probe their hearts and entrails. I don't know how much 
honest conviction there may be in any particular one of them. On the other hand, what I do know is 
that there exists ordinarily in life something called the "white lie", that is, the lie people allow 
themselves to tell "for the cause". That cause may happen to be a political or religious one, or it may 
serve the interests of a group, a professional body or certain individuals. In such cases, people take 
leeway as concerns the exactness of facts or figures and they may even end up finding themselves 
tailoring testimony to circumstances. The permanent care of exactitude is quite a constriction. I 
believe, moreover, in the force of fear as well as in the need for comfort. That force and that need 
dictate a good part of our behaviour. That said, amongst those who argue the case for "the Holocaust" 
there are some brazen liars. The revisionists have caught them in the act a thousand times. Simon 
Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel are superb false witnesses. 

And then there are the bluster merchants. Take the Austro-American Jew Raul Hilberg, whom I've 
already spoken to you about. It's worthwhile to come back to his case and bring up some more 
specific points. He is Number One amongst the historians who propagate the extermination myth. 
Hilberg commenced his research on the alleged "destruction of the European Jews" in 1948. He 
published his book in 1961. On page 177 thereof, he didn't shrink from affirming that there had been 
two orders from Hitler to exterminate the Jews. The first order, given in the spring of 1941, instructed 
his men, apparently, to go and kill the Jews on the spot, in Soviet territory, and, soon afterwards (no 
date specified), the second order was, apparently, to transport all the other Jews of Europe to 
extermination camps. But Hilberg mentioned no sources, no documents, no designation of those 
orders and no precise dates. However, no one stood up to challenge his statements and all the 
historians seem to have agreed to consider Raul Hilberg a first-rate historian. He's simply Number 
One amongst the historians who defend a certain official truth that's imposed on us. 

How do you account for the fact that, subsequently, Raul Hilberg should have had a change of heart 
and abandoned his 1961 explanation? 

The big revisionist offensive was in the late 1970s. Clearly Hilberg was jolted by it and, in 1982, he told 
the French weekly Nouvel Observateur: "In a certain way, Faurisson and others, without wanting to, 
did us a favour. They raised questions which had the effect of engaging historians in new research. 

They have obliged us to once again collect information, to re-examine documents and to go deeper 
into the understanding of what took place". What we didn't know at the time was that Hilberg, shaken 
by the advent of the revisionists, had gone back to work again and was revising his old argument, with 
its two alleged orders from Hitler, from top to bottom. 

In 1983, in a talk at a conference in New York, he suddenly presented his new thesis, an altogether 
strange one that ought to have disqualified him forever in the eyes of the historical community. 
According to the new line, there hadn't in fact been, for the immense enterprise of destroying an entire 
people on a whole continent, any order, plan or budget but merely a kind of tacit understanding, a 
spontaneous plot of German bureaucrats! Hilberg's words then were exactly the following: "But what 
began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any 
agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. [Those measures] 
were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, 
but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy". You'll have 
noticed that he specifies "no budget"; it's a response to a point that I personally had brought up. I'd 
said that, as nothing is done without money, above all in wartime, someone had to show me what 
huge sum had indeed been allocated to the alleged campaign of mass destruction of the Jews of 
Europe. You see how Hilberg, in fact, dodges the questions and comes up with a staggering 
"explanation". All in all, for him, the whole presumed vast criminal operation was carried out... by the 
workings of the Holy Spirit or through some phenomenon of spontaneous generation. He himself 
speaks of an "incredible meeting of minds" amongst countless bureaucrats; let it be asked in passing: 
if it is "incredible"; that is, unbelievable, how can people be required to believe it, on pain of fine and 
imprisonment? And what is thought transmission if not a paranormal phenomenon, something in which 
one should be still less obliged to believe? 

The day in Toronto when Raul Hilberg confirmed under oath that that was how he accounted for "the 
destruction of the European Jews" we had a good laugh round the big table where Ernst Ziindel 
welcomed us each evening as we returned from court. I for my part remember coming out with this: 
"We're entering a new epoch. From now on, whenever I need the salt and pepper or the water pitcher, 
I'll no longer even have to say so. We'll use the 'incredible meeting of minds' and 'consensus-mind 
reading'. After all, if the German bureaucrats, reputedly the most thick-headed of all, practised that 
system, why should we do without it?" 

In the new edition of his work, which was at press at the very moment the trial was going on, Hilberg 
didn't use those stupefying phrases but he did resort to their equivalents in convoluted and academic 
form, writing: "In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and 
commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization". 
And all that, he specifies, without leaving any written trace! 

Mr Faurisson, according to you, how many Jews died, all told, during the Second World War due to 
actions of the Germans? How many, amongst those, in the concentration camps? In which camps, 
exactly? How many through the use of gas chambers or gas vans? 

No Jew was killed in any execution gas chamber or gas van. Here it's a question of weapons of mass 
destruction of which no trace has ever been found and of which no one has been able to provide a 
technical description. There is no possibility that the alleged gas chambers shown, here and there, to 
tourists can ever have been actual gas chambers. I shall not here be returning to that subject, with 
which I have so often dealt, and I note that the opposing side stubbornly persist in their refusal to 
provide us with a technical and scientific study of the presumed crime weapon. As for the total number 
of Jews of Europe who died during the war due to actions of the Germans, that's not yet possible to 
determine, and this is so, to a large extent, because of the scandalous conduct of the wartime Allies 
and the State of Israel, who stand close guard over the enormous mass of archives stored in 
Germany, at Bad Arolsen, by the International Tracing Service (ITS). From time to time, it's heard that 
these archives are at last going to be opened to researchers. Jewish or Zionist organisations claim to 
demand such an opening. Don't believe any of it. I've devoted quite a lot of attention to the matter and 
can tell you that, if those archives were completely opened up to all researchers without restriction, it 
would spell catastrophe for the upholders of the "Holocaust" argument. It would be revealed how 
carefully the Third Reich authorities recorded data about every camp detainee's — Jewish or non- 
Jewish — arrival, departure, hospitalisations if any, successive jobs, transfers from one camp to 
another and, in the event, decease. And then there'd be access to the precise number of cremations 


done at each crematorium as well as the number of Jewish "survivors", that is of those millions of 
miraculously spared inmates who, after the war, spread throughout the world, many of them forming 
the original population of the State of Israel. In the late 1970s revisionists began getting interested in 
those archives: at the time there existed, on the premises of the ITS, a "historical section" (Historische 
Abteilung). In 1978 the authorities suddenly closed it. For my part, I ask that it be reopened, with 
permission given to all researchers to consult the totality of the material. 

But you've just asked about the number of Jews who died due to actions of the Germans. No one, for 
the time being, is able to say. To begin with, it would be necessary to set apart those who died of 
natural causes from those who died as a consequence of actions on the part of either the Germans or 
the Allies. Be that as it may, I have observations to make on the considerable number of Jews who 
survived the war and who are in themselves as many clues to suggest that there cannot have been a 
policy of killing all the Jews. In the Israeli daily Haaretz of April 18, 2004, correspondent Amiram 
Barkat had an article entitled "U.S. court to discuss question of who is a Holocaust survivor"; it told of 
how two Jewish demographics experts who'd had the job of reckoning the number of Jewish survivors 
still alive in 2004 had arrived, respectively, at the figures of 687,900 and 1 ,092,000. The difference is 
explained by the second expert's inclusion of the Jewish population of North Africa, Syria and 
Lebanon, territories occupied for a certain time either by the Germans and Italians or by the forces of 
the Vichy government. I'll refer here therefore only to the lower figure and point out that 687,900 
European Jews having experienced the German occupation and still alive nearly sixty years on imply 
that, just after the war, the number of Jewish survivors must necessarily have amounted to several 
million (probably 3,250,000). What sort of alleged extermination policy can there have been if millions 
of survivors or miraculously spared targets were left alive in its wake? At that period, Europeans were 
amazed at the influx to their countries of Jews who, they'd been told, had disappeared forever. The 
camps for displaced persons were full of them. We have at our disposal a great many photographs 
showing, in particular, Jewish youngsters arriving by train from Central Europe or housed in countless 
children's homes. Their physical appearance was identical to that of children of non-Jewish 
populations of the time. As far as France is concerned, we know that, of a Jewish population of about 
350,000, around 75,700 Jews, foreigners for the most part, were deported, but we're not told how 
many survived. The figure we're sometimes given — 2,500 out of 75,721 — results from numerous 
tricks that I haven't the time to list right now but I've explained them elsewhere. If you want an idea of 
how large and lively the French Jewish community was on the morrow of the war I recommend you 
look in a certain yearbook entitled L'Annuaire du judaTsme. The 1952 edition describes, in 415 pages, 
the situation of French and world Jewry. Believe me, it's instructive. By itself, the number of Jewish 
associations listed, with telephone numbers and addresses, is staggering. And behold the flood today 
of books, memoirs, testimonies of "miraculous" Jewish survivors, not to mention the applications for 
indemnity or compensation. 

But in Germany they never quit repeating the figure of six million Jews either gone missing or killed; 
it's neither five nor seven but always six. 

Even as conformist a historian as Martin Broszat long ago admitted that it was a "symbolic" figure, that 
is a mythical one. I'll add that it's part of the general Jewish symbology. Read the study, published in 
2003, by Don Heddesheimer: The First Holocaust. The author demonstrates, with newspaper 
reproductions to back it up, that from the year 1900 — but it might be possible to go back still further 
— the American Jewish press was already launching the slogan "Six million European Jews are 
dying". He provides examples from 1900, 1919, 1920, 1926, 1938, 1940. In Jewish circles it had 
become a leitmotiv. In Jerusalem, the specialists at the Yad Vashem Memorial set out, years ago, to 
establish a list of the names of the six million Jews who died in the "Holocaust". They have barely 
reached three million but on the basis, in good part, of simple unverified declarations emanating from 
unverified sources and processed in such a way that one and the same person can be recorded as 
having died several times, even, it seems, as many as ten times. On this subject I recommend certain 
studies published in the French-language review Dubitando, produced in Holland, whose contents can 
be downloaded at . 

But, according to you, of what size may the number of Jews be whose deaths were imputable to the 
Germans or their allies? 

There again, I'll refer you to the Suchdienst or International Tracing Service located at Bad Arolsen, to 
which non-approved historians have been barred entry since 1978. 


Fair enough, but give us a figure as concerns the dead of Auschwitz. 

Of the outrageous figures, the best known is that of four million but there have been, even officially, 
rather higher ones. The Nuremberg tribunal decided on four million; it's the figure that was inscribed 
on the commemorative stones at Auschwitz-Birkenau and which stayed there till 1990. Suddenly it 
was removed and, in 1995, after five years of dithering, that of a million and a half was put in its place 
after being chosen by Lech Walesa, then president of the Polish Republic. But those in charge of the 
Museum there and the official historians or researchers reduced it anew to 1,100,000, then 
progressively to 800,000, to a bit more than 600,000 and, finally, in 2002, to 510,000 (Fritjof Meyer). 
Personally I reckon that the total number of dead, Jewish and non-Jewish, for the entire duration of 
Auschwitz's use by the Germans (May 1940-January 1945) must have reached the level — a 
considerable one — of 125,000 in the thirty-nine camps of that vast complex; those deaths are to be 
put down, above all, to the typhus epidemics whose devastating effects spread even to the ranks of 
the Germans there and, in particular, to the medical personnel (striking, for example, two head 
physicians: Drs Popiersch and Schwela). I base this estimate on the data in the Sterbebucher and a 
few other documents. The total of deaths registered therein is 80,010 but, considering that a known 
number of Sterbebucher are missing, I suppose this total must be put at around 125,000. As for the 
figure of 74,000 that's sometimes proposed, it seems to me to have arisen from a journalistic error. 

You mention physicians at Auschwitz. What have you to say on the subject of Dr Mengele? 

I've looked into his case. I don't believe I'm wrong in stating that Josef Mengele was probably one of 
the most slandered men of his era. In all likelihood, he deserved the reputation, which he had amongst 
his fellow citizens of Gunzburg, of "ein Kavalier". I've had a look through his manuscripts 
(unpublished), which show a man steeped in Greco-Roman culture, very keen on science and curious 
about everything. He didn't hide it from his close acquaintances that the gassing stories were pure 
invention. During a posthumous show-trial of Mengele held in Jerusalem before the world's television 
cameras, his "victims" came forth to impute the worst atrocities to him: according to them, he used to 
pin gouged-out human eyeballs on the walls of his office, or pour acid into the eyes of his "guinea 
pigs" to see whether it made them turn from black to blue. There's hardly a class of things, real or 
imagined, that lends itself as readily to nonsensical jabber as that of medical monstrosities, especially 
when they can be blamed on a white-coated "Herr Doktor". Here it's easy to have the layman believe 
any atrocity story at all. On this score, I highly recommend a book by two British lawyers about the 
Dering case (Mavis Hill & L. Norman Williams, Auschwitz in England / A Record of a Libel Action, 
London, MacGibbon and Kee, 1965). In his 1959 book Exodus, the Jew Leon Uris had the gall to write 
that, from the beginning of his internment at Auschwitz, the Polish surgeon Wladislaw Alexander 
Dering (spelt Dehring by Uris) had carried out "seventeen thousand surgical experiments without 
anaesthesia" on women. Note that figure, along with the word "experiments". After the war, Dr Dering 
had settled in England, then had practised in Somalia and, finally, went back to England where he 
received an O.B.E., comparable to our Legion d'Honneur in France. 

From April 13 to May 6, 1964 there ran the trial in London of Dering's libel suit against Uris and his 
publisher. During the proceedings, an extraordinary quantity of lies were to be exposed thanks, 
especially, to the discovery of the records of surgical operations performed in Block 21 of Auschwitz 
where Dr Dering had worked. The defendants were driven progressively to reduce the number of 
dreadful operations imputed to the retired surgeon. Also, the women became "men and women" and 
the figure seventeen thousand was dropped and replaced by "a very large number", then "a figure 
between one hundred and two hundred" and, at the end, it seems the defence settled for the case of 
three women identified only by their Christian names. What's more, it had to be acknowledged that the 
operations had been done not without anaesthesia but with rachidian (spinal column) anaesthesia, 
and a renowned English anaesthetist testified that in his view Dr Dering had been right to choose that 
type. A dramatic moment arose when Dr Dering was able to prove the surgical records had been 
falsified by their Polish custodians starting from a certain page for August 1943, a date when he was 
no longer performing operations and was no longer in Block 21 . The Germans at Auschwitz had 
scrupulously kept those records, partly in Latin, and with, I recall, the occasional mention of a "casus 
explorativus", the term applied to surgical tasks performed "in order to see". Dr Dering was to win his 
case and be awarded damages of one farthing — a quarter of an old penny! The judge then ruled 
peremptorily that the physician, although he'd been abominably libelled, would have to bear court 
costs, which were considerable, and denied him leave to appeal. All due to the fact that, throughout 
the whole trial, the shadow of Auschwitz and the "gas chambers", constantly evoked — even by the 


judge — had never ceased to cast itself on the plaintiff. If I recall correctly Dering was to declare: 
"Here I am ruined, but I've saved my honour", and it seems he died not long afterwards. 

Some people will ask you the following question: "But where did all those Jews go, those who you say 
weren't exterminated?" 

My answer is: "To Palestine and fifty other countries throughout the world, of which I can give you the 
list". A good many of the nearly six million Jews who today inhabit the State of Israel are "survivors" or 
descendants of "survivors" of what they call "the Holocaust". Besides, when Steven Spielberg decided 
to launch his vast project of gathering together fifty thousand survivors' "testimonies" he sent his 
interviewers to about fifty countries of the world; that's the number of countries to which those Jews 
scattered after the war. 

Some participants at the conference held that, when the Wehrmacht started its offensive in the East, 
many Jews fled or were transported towards the Soviet Union; what are your thoughts on this? 

That's quite correct, but it's still hard to reckon the number of those Jews who settled, for example, in 
Uzbekistan (Tashkent, Samarkand), Tajikistan or elsewhere, perhaps even in the Jewish autonomous 
region of Birobijan. 

How do you account for the fact that almost all the former concentration camp inmates state they can 
attest to the reality of the gas chambers there? 

They're repeating a rumour that allows them to grant themselves, with no inconvenience, the status of 
heroes or miraculous survivors. They generally do so risk-free since there's very little chance that 
anyone will put their backs to the wall and ask for explanations. During one of my trials, a super- 
excited Jew came up to me at the courtroom entrance shouting and showing me his Auschwitz 
registration tattoo. "How dare you say the gas chambers didn't exist?", he said. "I'm a witness to their 
existence." I looked him in the eye and told him: "Describe a gas chamber for me." Losing his 
composure, he answered: "If I'd seen one I wouldn't be here to talk to you about it." I then pointed out 
that, like all the Jews who'd returned from Auschwitz, he was rather a witness to there never having 
been a policy amongst the Germans of physically exterminating the Jews, since there he was, very 
much alive. I'll remind you that in 1985 at the first Ziindel trial, in Toronto, we had the rare chance to 
cross-examine the Number One Jewish witness to the "Holocaust", a certain Rudolf Vrba. Look up the 
trial transcripts to see how that arrogant individual was in the end put to rout and how he had to 
confess that, in his book on Auschwitz, reputed to be so exact and meticulous, he'd resorted to "poetic 
licence": "licentia poetarum" as he let fly, in Latin. 

According to you, what happened to the Jews selected on what's called "the Auschwitz (or Birkenau) 

The men were put on one side and the women and children on the other. In separate columns, either 
on foot or, for some, in lorries, they all went off to the Sauna where they showered and were 
disinfected. Photos, well-known ones, from what's called The Auschwitz Album attest to these arrivals 
on the ramp. It's in this sector that a football ground ("Sportplatz") was located, and the newly arrived 
inmates could see it just beside the ramp; there was a volleyball court and there were also a great 
number of hospital barracks, at one side for the women, at the other for the men. It's in this same 
sector that two big crematoria stood flanked by little gardens and visible from all around; also, large 
settling tanks for wastewater, shower and disinfection installations, vast storehouses for personal 
belongings which, as at the entrance to any prison or any camp, were confiscated from the 

What do you make of the speech given by Adolf Hitler at the Kroll Opera House in Berlin on January 
30, 1939? He said then — these were his words — : "If international finance Jewry within Europe and 
abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a world war, then the consequence will 
be not the Bolshevisation of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the 
destruction of the Jewish race in Europe". 


In that pre-war speech there is positively no question of a physical extermination of the Jews. To those 
who were blowing on the embers and desired with all their hearts a crusade against Germany, Hitler 
was saying in his way: "Don't harbour any illusions: if you succeed in triggering a war, it's not we who'll 
be annihilated but our Communist and Jewish enemies". I'll refer you to the analysis that the late 
Wilhelm Staglich made of that declaration in Der Auschwitz Mythos. Dr Staglich also dealt with 
Heinrich Himmler's speeches at Posen, in 1943, speeches to which people in certain quarters have 
tagged on the attention-grabbing adjective "secret"; before and during the war, and up to the very last 
months, Himmler tried everything he could to convince the Allies to take the Jews, whom they seemed 
to find so marvellous, into their own countries. 

Therefore, contrary to what other historians say, for you that speech of Hitler's doesn't constitute proof 
that he wanted to annihilate the Jews. 

Obviously not. And you'll no longer find, I believe, any historians who hold that it does. 

And what do you say about Adolf Hitler's political testament? In it can be read, for instance: 

"But nor have I left any doubt that if the nations of Europe are once more to be treated only as 
collections of stocks and shares of these international conspirators in money and finance, then those 
who carry the real guilt for the murderous struggle, this people will also be held responsible: the Jews 
[das Judentum]! I have further left no one in doubt that this time it will not be only millions of children of 
Europeans of the Aryan peoples who will starve to death, not only millions of grown men who will 
suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children who will be burned and 
bombed to death in the cities, without those who are really responsible also having to atone for their 
crime, even if by more humane means [wenn auch durch humanere Mittel]". 

By "more humane means" didn't Hitler mean "the gas chambers"? 

Pure speculation! Hitler signed that text on April 29, 1945, that is the eve of his suicide (let's note in 
passing that, according to the Vulgate, the "gas chambers" had no longer been operating since late 
November 1944). He had before him the appalling spectacle of a country laid to waste and its men, 
women and children being systematically torched with phosphorous. He promises those behind this 
inhuman war that they'll have to atone for their crime but not, all the same, through the horrible and 
barbarous means that the Allies were using. The pinnacle of horror is to go and burn people alive. It 
was the British leaders, Churchill at their head, who, as of 1940-1941 , decided that from then on war 
would be waged systematically on the German civilians and who, to that purpose, undertook the 
production of heavy bomber aircraft designed to destroy the German cities. Until then, military men 
strictly limited themselves to making war against other military men and, when they did happen to kill 
civilians, they put the case, rightly or wrongly, that it was as a consequence — a regrettable one — of 
military action (for example, during a tactical bombardment). The British gentlemen were innovators in 
the art of war: on the one hand, they elected to slaughter German civilians systematically in order to 
make the opposing military leaders give in and, on the other hand, they went about stirring up and 
maintaining the cowards' war, that of snipers or "Resistants", against German soldiers. There might 
have been some courage in blowing oneself up with a bomb to kill some of the enemy in the process 
but there was hardly any in the sniper who acted under cover and then fled the scene, thus wittingly 
setting off bloody reprisals against numerous innocent people. Soviet savagery and American brutality 
then joined in. From Hitler's point of view, the unnatural alliance of the City's and Wall Street's 
capitalism with Muscovite Communism had been sealed in the deliberate holocaust of the German 
people; the Ark of the Covenant between those two opposites united the Jews of the whole world, so 
powerful and influential particularly in the financial spheres of the English-speaking countries, in the 
media and in the international Communist movement. The German historian Ernst Nolte had already 
offered me that argument of the "more humane means" being evidence of the gas chambers' 
existence. It goes to show how destitute of real evidence such historians are. 

Doesn't the report of the Berlin -Wan n see conference prove the existence of a plan to exterminate the 

Not in the least. Undated, unsigned, bearing no stamp of any bureau, this piece has the look of a draft 
report telling of a meeting held on January 20, 1942 in the Berlin suburbs. Nowhere is it a question of 


killing or exterminating the Jews but, for those Jews able to work, of evacuation eastwards for them to 
be put to work, whilst those aged 65 and over were to be sent to Theresienstadt, in Bohemia. There 
appears several times in this document the expression "final solution of the Jewish question in 
Europe", which is sometimes shortened to "final solution of the Jewish question" or to "final solution" or 
even, quite simply, to "solution". The original phrase, in its complete form, was "a final territorial 
solution of the Jewish question" (understood: the Jewish question in Europe). A certain Martin Luther, 
under-secretary of State in the German foreign office, employed that phrase on page 4 of his famous 
memorandum of August 21, 1942. That adjective "territorial" means that the question will have to be 
settled by finding the Jews a territory of their own; any other solution would be inadequate. For if, for 
example, after the war, the Jews became free again in Europe, they would soon, as history shows, 
manage to regain their power and influence there; whereas, in the event of a transfer for good 
somewhere outside Europe, those who'd survived the hardships entailed would make up an elite 
capable of forming the germinal cell of a Jewish renewal. It's silly to talk here of an extermination 
project. Even Yehuda Bauer, professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, ended up, in 1992, 
denouncing "the silly story of Wannsee". He stated: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly 
story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at". 

Some claim that the number of Jews killed by the Germans doesn't matter. Whether it's a question of 
six million, two million or 500,000, the crime remains enormous. 

The remark is a common one. In my judgment I've already answered it, in substance, by showing you 
that Germany never had a policy of exterminating the Jews. That said, figures matter, and sometimes 
they even matter greatly. First of all, there's an important difference between dying and being killed. 
Then, it's far more grave an act to kill a mass of people than one person alone. Finally, the difference 
between six million and 500,000 being 5,500,000, there you have, in any case, 5,500,000 persons 
who, instead of having died or been killed, turn out to be well and truly alive. Still, when a modest- 
sized community can claim that six million of its members have been methodically done away with (six 
million being the equivalent of the population of a country like Switzerland), it will obtain, most 
assuredly, more compassion from the rest of the world than if it only invokes the figure of 500,000 
dead or killed. With six million dead or killed it can demand and obtain a good deal more moral 
understanding, financial compensation, assorted powers and privileges. For a small people, the ability 
to boast of being a millionaire six times over in dead or murdered opens up the chance to demand and 
garner, with no great difficulty, billions in hard cash. A Shoah estimated at six million victims is the 
guarantee of a "Shoah business" that will bear fruit proportionately. By this I don't mean that lies have 
been told and exaggerations made in order to make money or acquire privileges. Lies have been told 
and the subsequent success of the lies has been turned to good account. 

Are you of the opinion that Germany has contracted a moral responsibility towards Israel and the 
Jews, a responsibility that must also be borne in the form of financial reparations? 

I am rather of the opinion of the American author Arthur Robert Butz, the Number One revisionist. The 
text of his masterly book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, ends with this comment on the colossal 
German "reparations": "... it then develops that Israel owes Germany a lot of money, because the 
proposed justification for the reparations has been invalidated". It is worth noting that the German 
version of the book is, on this point, rather different and, unhappily, less clear-cut. 

In your view, do the Jews who survived the Second World War deserve financial compensation? 

All the true victims of that atrocious conflict and its aftermath deserve respect, consideration and 
indemnity; amongst the victims I should mention, in particular, the Germans — but not their leaders — 
and the entire Palestinian people. 

Are you an anti-Semite, that is an enemy of the Jews? 

You mean anti-Jewish. No, I don't consider myself anti-Jewish as I don't wish the Jews any ill. I don't 
wish for anyone to touch a hair on their head, if only so as not to have to hear them yell still more 
loudly. What I do want, on the other hand, is for them not to do me any harm; nor to others. I want the 
deafening drumming of their holocaustic propaganda to end, drumming behind which one can all too 
often make out the drum rolls leading up to new wars. There are none so whining and warlike as that 


Jewish, Zionist and neo-con nomenklatura which never quits demanding censorship, repression, wars 
and crusades in the name of the "Holocaust", that is in the name of an especially degrading lie. 

Are you a racist? 


What future do you wish for "the Holocaust"? 

If by that word are meant, all together, the alleged policy of physical extermination of the Jews, the 
alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged Six Million, I wish that abominable slander a speedy end 
in the rubbish bins of history. As an academic, I want it to be possible to write on the Second World 
War without having to dread the effects of special laws put on the books at the behest of the Jewish 
nomenklatura. Hitler died more than sixty years ago and it remains "streng verboten" to write "on" 
Hitler; one may write only "against" Hitler. This is either childishness or else treating people like 
children. I wish to see us all entitled to write about him just as we're allowed to do with Napoleon, 
Churchill or Stalin. 

Have you a word to say in conclusion? 

My conclusion is that we are here in Tehran the day after a conference, held on December 1 1th and 
12th of 2006, dealing with "the Holocaust". That conference was truly international. We'd have liked to 
see and hear Raul Hilberg and Norman Finkelstein. The latter says the revisionists are "crackpots", 
lunatics. If he'd come here, I'd have asked him quite politely in what respect I personally deserved that 
epithet, and I'd also have inquired as to what writings of ours he might in fact have read before 
pronouncing such a judgment on revisionist authors. The conference ended with the forming of a 
"Holocaust" research group, with an Iranian, Dr Ramin, as its president and, provisionally, five 
members: an Australian, a Briton, a Dane, a Frenchman and a Swiss. The year 2006 will go down in 
history, not just the history of Iran but that of the whole world as well. Iran, this amazing country, will 
have had the heroism, in one and the same year, to say no, first to American imperialism, then to the 
"Holocaust" crusaders. I won't hide it from you that this heroism scares me. Perhaps President 
Ahmadinejad will in future have to pay dearly for his temerity. 

Were you able to have a word with him? 

Yes, we talked for a few minutes face to face, amidst a lot of other conference participants. I 
expressed my admiration for his courage, along with our gratitude for this astonishing seminar, open 
to all, revisionists and non-revisionists alike. To me, the one whom the world press depicts as a 
dangerous fanatic appeared, both in his closing speech and in our brief conversation, to be a man of 
refined spirit, sincere and soft-spoken. And besides, you know he's never said that the State of Israel 
must be "wiped off the map", but he has thought it enough to adopt a phrase of the late Ayatollah 
Khomeini, in whose view the Zionist State would one day be erased from the chart of time and history. 
He's expressed the opinion that in the Middle East Zionism is bound to disappear just as Communism 
did in Russia. He wishes to see all the communities in Palestine, including the Jewish community, find 
their respective places one again. Hence that delegation of six rabbis at the conference, wearing a 
sort of badge with the message that they were Jews but not Zionists. As I've told you, I myself 
conversed and got on quite well with two of those rabbis. One of them said to me, in the presence of a 
witness: "I ask your forgiveness for what 'they' have done to you, if it's at all forgivable". To which I 
replied "Let's stay united", meaning we should make a united stand against those who, holding all the 
power, abuse that excess of power. 

You've paid dearly for this revisionist struggle that you've been waging since, at least, 1974. 

Yes, I've paid dearly but less so than other revisionists. I'm talking not only about the physical assaults 
that I've had to endure and the hospitalisations but also of the avalanche of court cases and, 
sometimes, their scandalous outcome. I'm well placed to know that with regard to a revisionist, as 
formerly with regard to sorcerers or witches, the judges, apart from a few exceptions, no longer 
recognise any moral principles, any laws, any rights. As for the media, they've heaped onto my name 
an extravagant load of abuse, insults, slanders. In over thirty years they've never spontaneously 


offered me the chance to present my defence. With but one exception: in December 1980, on the 
radio, I had the time to utter a sixty-word sentence summing up the findings of my research, but the 
axe came down in the form of a lawsuit and judgment against me precisely because of that sentence. 
It's a disgrace that, from 1974 to the present day, journalists have been able to say my name a 
hundred thousand times to brand me as a "gangster of history" without a single one of them ever 
asking me for an interview, if only to hear me talk for a few minutes in my defence. No less distressing 
is the general silence of my colleagues, French academics and intellectuals who otherwise are so 
quick to proclaim their desire to defend the freedom of inquiry. The American Noam Chomsky has, on 
one occasion, spoken up in favour of my right to freedom of expression but, since then, he's only ever 
spoken of revisionists as of "crackpots". The only people in France to take the risk of defending me 
have been, besides my lawyer (and his friends), Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion, Jean-Gabriel Cohn- 
Bendit (and their friends, amongst whom the courageous Jacob Assous). But I have no right to 
complain if I compare my lot with that of so many other revisionists, to begin with the heroic Ernst 
Zundel and a good number of other Germans or Austrians who either have experienced long years of 
imprisonment or will be imprisoned in future. In Sweden, the ever-steadfast Ahmed Rami has himself 
also tasted prison life. And then we were saved by the Internet. Maybe I've been lucky. I shouldn't say 
the same for my wife and children. 

Will you agree to let this interview be published? 

Yes, on condition that you submit the text to me and that, if need be, I may make corrections and 
additions, either on my own initiative or at your request. 

Then we're agreed. I thank you. 

Danke sehr. And, addressing myself to your country, I'll add: "Armes Deutschland!" [Poor Germany!]. 

Leider. [Unhappily]